Boboridis Konstadinos G, Uddin Jimmy, Mikropoulos Dimitrios G, Bunce Catey, Mangouritsas George, Voudouragkaki Irini C, Konstas Anastasios G P
1st University Department of Ophthalmology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 1 Kyriakidi Street, 546 36, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Adv Ther. 2015 Jul;32(7):595-611. doi: 10.1007/s12325-015-0228-y. Epub 2015 Jul 23.
Orbital decompression is the indicated procedure for addressing exophthalmos and compressive optic neuropathy in thyroid eye disease. There are an abundance of techniques for removal of orbital bone, fat, or a combination published in the scientific literature. The relative efficacy and complications of these interventions in relation to the specific indications remain as yet undocumented. We performed a systematic review of the current published evidence for the effectiveness of orbital decompression, possible complications, and impact on quality of life.
We searched the current databases for medical literature and controlled trials, oculoplastic textbooks, and conference proceedings to identify relevant data up to February 2015. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two or more interventions for orbital decompression.
We identified only two eligible RCTs for inclusion in the review. As a result of the significant variability between studies on decompression, i.e., methodology and outcome measures, we did not perform a meta-analysis. One study suggests that the transantral approach and endonasal technique had similar effects in reducing exophthalmos but the latter is safer. The second study provides evidence that intravenous steroids may be superior to primary surgical decompression in the management of compressive optic neuropathy requiring less secondary surgical procedures.
Most of the published literature on orbital decompression consists of retrospective, uncontrolled trials. There is evidence from those studies that removal of the medial and lateral wall (balanced) and the deep lateral wall decompression, with or without fat removal, may be the most effective surgical methods with only few complications. There is a clear unmet need for controlled trials evaluating the different techniques for orbital decompression. Ideally, future studies should address the effectiveness, possible complications, quality of life, and cost of each intervention.
眼眶减压术是治疗甲状腺眼病所致眼球突出和压迫性视神经病变的指定手术。科学文献中已发表了大量用于去除眼眶骨、脂肪或两者结合的技术。这些干预措施相对于特定适应症的相对疗效和并发症尚未得到记录。我们对目前已发表的关于眼眶减压术有效性、可能的并发症及其对生活质量影响的证据进行了系统综述。
我们检索了截至2015年2月的医学文献数据库、对照试验、眼整形教科书和会议论文集,以确定相关数据。我们纳入了比较两种或更多眼眶减压干预措施的随机对照试验(RCT)。
我们仅确定了两项符合纳入综述标准的RCT。由于减压研究之间存在显著差异,即方法和结果测量方面的差异,我们未进行荟萃分析。一项研究表明,经鼻窦入路和鼻内镜技术在减轻眼球突出方面效果相似,但后者更安全。第二项研究提供的证据表明,在治疗需要较少二次手术的压迫性视神经病变时,静脉注射类固醇可能优于初次手术减压。
关于眼眶减压术的大多数已发表文献均为回顾性、非对照试验。这些研究表明,去除内侧壁和外侧壁(平衡减压)以及深部外侧壁减压,无论是否去除脂肪,可能是最有效的手术方法,且并发症较少。显然,迫切需要进行对照试验来评估不同的眼眶减压技术。理想情况下,未来的研究应探讨每种干预措施的有效性、可能的并发症、生活质量和成本。